How gun control creeps (or, we would never do that)

[alternety]

Unannounced police visits to legal gun owners begin

 

[stewie-Y]

And this is why the prudent will always vote against firearm registration.

 

[NavyLCDR]

In Washington this year we have the fight against I-594, which is "universal background checks." I was watching a TV debate and their were two people on the Yes on I-594 side making their B.S. claims. The first guy says something like I-594 is NOT gun registration. It's only making sure that criminals can't buy guns. Then the second guy, which I think was retired LEO, says something like - it will help us be able to trace guns used in crimes because we will be able to trace the sale from person to person until the time that someone uses the gun in a crime. Now wait a minute.... If we are not registering these background checks and gun sales then how exactly are you going to trace the sale of the gun from person to person?!? 2 and 2 are adding up to 6 here.

 

[alternety]

Yes LCDR. There is the normal strange and idiotic info from the side wanting to eliminate personal guns. And videos of informational protests with answers from the representatives of the "the world will be instantly safer if we take guns form all you non-criminal users" fairy. The control people are so blatantly wrong, it boggles the mind. But they get media coverage.

Unfortunately, few voters have knowledge of the truth about the many claims of the control people. Bad numbers, bad "derived" conclusions, erroneous identification of "the problem", nice (e.g., very expensive) media productions and presentation, an odd belief that making new laws will stop criminals, and just presenting things as if they were on serious reality altering drugs. They are really making a religion of no guns for law abiding people. There is simply no other explanation for their point of view, but a religious cult. Probably they have some image of Bloomberg changing ammunition to wine. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an effective counter to this attempt to further deny our rights. I certainly have not seen anything from the media (in whatever form). Billionaires (of questionable judgement/belief) get to determine what the citizens see.

Give a person a gun, and they will be free for a day (or until the government notices). Give a person the right to own and use a gun, they will be free forever. That is (in my mind) essentially the fundamental thinking behind the Second Amendment.

I just sent in my ballot for this issue. If people actually read the information in the pamphlet sent to voters, and they are even moderately cognizant of the issues, they will vote no for I-594 an yes for I-591. One hopes.

 

[BluesStringer]

Considering that leftists are never truly cognizant of constitutional issues (the Constitution being the biggest impediment to the fulfillment of the left's agenda), what happens if both I-594 and I-591 pass in November? Aren't y'all in for a giant court battle then? Doesn't the question of which one is superior and which one is inferior land squarely at the state's Supreme Court, and likely eventually at the fed SC? Who on this site would put their confidence in any "supreme" court in this country at this late stage of its decline considering recent history?

I guess I hope for y'all that the right one passes and the right one loses, but I don't see it making much difference anyway. Sooner or later the fed will stick its nose in and overrule the will of The People no matter which side wins this round in WA State. Maybe it'll go beyond this round to the next one, or the one after that, but the fed, and likely the One World Government beast is comin' no matter what happens this cycle.

Blues

 

[VT Patriot]

Ah the Brits... Great people, I have the pleasure of working with them on US tours. A chaperone in one of my groups, a teacher of history, (an 'historian' in her words) got into a rant on what was wrong in America. After claiming that the 2A is obsolete and should never have been enacted, and was part of that silly document written in 1776, I stopped her in her tracks. I calmly pointed out that the 2A was enacted in 1791, long after we had defeated the Brits in the revolution. That it had been enacted so that the Govt could never again enslave it's citizens as the Brits had done. The 'historian' and I had a very cool relationship after that. I'm sure she went back home and did a bit of research.